I believe in the free market.

I believe in free education and health care, first and foremost.

Federal Judge Richard Posner: The GOP Has Made Me Less Conservative : It's All Politics : NPR


He's not the only one. When the canard you believed in gets exposed as a hill of beans, you start to have second and third thoughts about your political ideology. Especially if it simply doesn't work.

I don't think there's any question that the conservative electorate has shifted to a more moderate position. I also don't think that's a bad thing either. The politicians will have to shift as well if they want to keep that more moderate electorate happy, which could eventually lead to a much better position for the party/agenda as a whole.

Every poll I've seen shows the opposite. Conservatives are far more conservative than they were ten years ago and their positions generally poll poorly with moderates.

I'm talking about the voters being more moderate, not the politicians. My comments align with what you're saying. I don't disagree in all. We'll have to see if the politicians are smart enough to move to where the voters are sliding.

I have met all three U.S. Senate candidates in the Missouri race this year. Had an experience that mirrors what we're discussing here. I'm of the more moderate variety of conservative. One of the candidates is Todd Akin. I met his wife at an Republican event one afternoon. Wonderful, older lady who would remind anyone of their favorite grandmother. Had a 2-3 minute talk with her and really enjoyed it.

Later that night, I was in line for the buffet at the event. All three candidates were chatting it up with people while they waited in line. Bruenner and Steelman (Akin's opponents) were very easy going and approachable. Akin approached me last and we shook hands. I told him I had met his wife and how fantastic it was to talk with her and get to know more about her.

At this point, I'm expecting him to come back with comments somewhere along the line of 'yes, she's such a wonderful person and I'm lucky to have her' or 'so glad you were able to meet her and learn more about what we're trying to do in our campaign'. His response?

"Great........and did you know I was voted as having the most conservative voting record during my time in office?????"

F'n idiot. I should have responded, "Great, and did you know you just lost a vote by feeding this moderate Republican a BS car salesman line rather than offering a heartfelt response????"

What an absolute turn-off. Is it so difficult for some of these people (on both sides) to be a bit more personable when trying to fish for votes, rather than going for the cheesy sell?

Do they really think that's what we want to hear?

I'm talking about the voters. From policies, to disdain for compromise, to believing Obama is a Muslim, strong majorities of conservatives are, if anything, further to the right than their elected officials and certainly further to the right than they were in 2000.

In a GOP primary in Missouri he'd be a fool to say anything else.

This. And any attempt to argue to the contrary is MOST LIKELY (not saying there aren't ANY moderate Republicans, just that they're a small number) simply part and parcel of an attempt to continue to move the Overton window further to the right.

I'd be interested to see the polling you're talking about, especially related to Missouri.


It's not bearing out that way at this point. His numbers have been the ones in decline since he started doing regular speaking engagements. Bruener is the one trending upward, and he's clearly the most moderate of the three candidates in that race.

I just hope I don't have to choose between Akin and McCaskill in the election. That would be a nightmare scenario IMO.

As far as the senate race, the last poll that I can find was at the end of May, and that had all three candidates within the margin of error. I'd bet those numbers aren't the same now that the primary is close, but who knows.

As for issue polling, I don't have any links this morning, but Gallup, NYTimes/CBS, WSJ, etc. have all run issue questions where large majorities of GOP and/or conservatives favor far right positions that are not favored by independents.

Not really. But like anything else on a scale, define Socialist. Technically the "Get your government hands off my Medicare" lady is somewhat socialist and she'd be shocked and insulted to hear it.

SI

Tax rates shouldn't effect decisions upstream like hiring in any healthy company, if adding employee X increases revenues more than expenses (even marginally) it is a good hire. Factor in a degree of risk for caution and it still comes down to that decision fundamentally, does this person generate a return to the bottom line with a significant probability.

What taxes do impact is the pot of money you have after all of your economic activity, the shell game lets them dangle a number in front of their shareholders that looks nice (boosting the short term price) and a different number in front of the government so they hand over less cash. There is some advantage to these games, at least in a world driven by short term stock prices and the executive bonus. In the long run theoretically they have to pay a tax (which is why the Republicans love the concept of tax holidays, essentially providing a black hole to unbalance the equation and take the money out of the system).

Cash is cash, the games are going to happen as long as they can get an advantage from it. The best answer is a simpler tax code enforced in such a way that if they game it too much they lose access to the extremely lucrative US market (this is possible, the government goons just don't have the incentive to do this).

Our reluctance to try to fix these imbalances is stoked up by the corrupt politicians pretending everything is in absolute terms on every downside (if you raise taxes one percent every investor will flee to the Cayman Islands) and washing out any of the potential gains as irrelevant (if you raise taxes one percent the rich people are so smart they will always avoid it entirely). Sometimes a simpler code will help more because it decreases the avenues they have for avoiding the taxes. Transparency is the ultimate enemy of corruption, that is why you see so many initiatives to restrict access to information and allow giant opaque walls to exist in business and government.

Dig for facts, run some numbers, not every idea has to be a battle between blowhard demagogues.

There is enormous amounts of data on tax rates, tax revenues, GDP, unemployment... yes it is a complex picture but some basic data mining can at least get you a concept of what factors are correlated at the macro level. Microeconomic analysis can be used on particular scenarios to see if a 'supply-side' solution makes sense and estimate its impact, and then apply that model to a number of companies and see how well it fits.

You start by analyzing the data you can and keep asking questions to develop your model. You avoid trying to advocate a position and you let the numbers lead you where they will, sometimes it will shock you out of your beliefs which you realize were more religion than reality anyway.

For health care, there are a lot of statistics of single payer states versus our mish-mash private system. The simple facts are for some reason, maybe not related to single payer, we pay more per every unit of healthcare than just about everyone.

I'm starting to think that people use the term "Socialist" just to troll the Republicans. (And I can't say I oppose any attempt to troll the Republicans.)

But really, saying "I am a Socialist" carries a lot of weight. It's a word that has lots of different, specific economic models under it. Anywhere from planned economy to market socialism. But, they all share a few common traits. Public control over the means of production being one. That means we'd have a economic system where the government directly decided (either through the government or through government owned corporations) what cars got made, what food was grown, all the way down to which games and toys were made.

We certainly wouldn't have FOF under a socialist system. Jim would be working in a cubical farm on whatever program that government felt they or the public needed. Probably accounting software (...the horror....)

Believing the government should offer some tax funded services does not make you a Socialist. People are confusing "Capitalism vs. Socialism" with "Anarchy vs. Government" (or they're not confusing them, just building a strawman, but no one ever does that!). There is "Anarcho-Capitalsim" and "Anarcho-Communism", but that's a whole different discussion. When someone says the are a Capitalist, they are not saying they oppose the government doing anything, and the terms "Capitalism" and "Socialism" are broad enough that they are not necessarily mutually exclusive (See: State capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Here is a NY Times analysis on the states in play for the Presidential and Senate. No predictions but analysis.

The Electoral Map - Presidential Race Ratings and Swing States - Election 2012 - NYTimes.com
Senate Ratings - Election 2012 - NYTimes.com

Republicans in office also use the term as a ploy to get their own constituents to try and vote against / look unfavorably on Obama.

I laugh hard anytime someone invokes the phrase "Obama is a Socialist."

Or perhaps you're just confusing Communism with Socialism?

While it's very possible that some people are confusing what the terms mean or have just been listening to too much of the U.S. political dialogue which insists on confusing what these terms even remotely mean; it doesn't mean that just because someone says "I'm a socialist" or "I'm an anarchist with adjectives" or "I'm a free market socialist" or whatever else (mutualism? left-libertarianism?) , that they're somehow wrong. Not that anyone in this thread did that outright.

But going so far as to say that in a socialist society someone wouldn't be able to make a game and sell it on the free market, means one probably needs to go back and do a bit more reading before starting a (well-intentioned, probably) lecture on what it means to be a socialist.

The one thing that bugs me, at least in reference to Europe/Canada is that it seems that a large majority of advances in health care, drugs, etc. come out of the US compared to those countries and it's almost like we as Americans are paying for the advancement of medical science and then every other country waits for our companies to come over and say "Hey, that's great. We'll give you X for that" and they end up recovering their remaining profit from the US, which is the only place they can. Thus, we're paying out the ass compared to Canada/Europe.

Is this somewhat true or am I ignorant on the topic? :confused:

I believe there is alot of truth to this. However, note there was an article several years back that said pharmas spend more money on marketing/advertising than research (not sure if true anymore) so its not the entire story.

FWIW, many of the big pharma companies are based in Europe. (e.g. Glaxo, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, et. al.)

It's the patents that allow companies to charge hundred to thousands of % markup on their drugs. Also, big pharma is only doing research on the cancers and such that are likely to make the most profit, the smaller, lesser known diseases don't get as much love simply because there's no financial motive (or as large of one) to solve those mysteries.


Why an MRI costs $1,080 in America and $280 in France - The Washington Post

[rhetorical]
And what moral system will be judging such actions? And how would such actions help/hurt you? If oen believes that we are judged personally, how can anything collective (non-participatory) be of value? Or are you implying some self-governed, sliding-scale morality system?
[/rhetorical]

Which would also go along with why college tuition and the resulting student loans have skyrocketed in prices.

So I take it that you don't drive on public roads, don't believe in public policing, or public fire departments, or public utilities?

One's moral system is somewhat relative. My Catholic background is the basis of my morality (although I am non-practicing).

I'm not sure I understand the context to the remaing questions. However, I would suggest we start a new thread as it does not relate to Obama.

One of the better Bill Maher New Rules rants from about a month ago ("If he's a Socialist, he's a lousy one.")

Those aren't "moral" issues either but man's needs, organizations and politics. To elevate man's laws into some collective morality is rather self-centered.

Healthcare isn't a need?

Are you not comprehending? I'll repeat. Those are "man's needs, organizations and politics." It's arrogant to elevate them to a morality issue when you will fall very short.

So preserving life in the womb is a crucial moral issue but once someone's out, preserving that life is not important?

Proper diet and exercise is a need.

Pro-Life isn't about abortion or morality though, it's about shaming women.

To use an old cliche (and basically my point) is that you cannot legislate morality. Abortion is an act that one should not do or advise (unless under extenuating circumstances, imo) regardless of the laws that man's government feels it needs to do. Passing the responsibility to a system that is rife with corruption, greed and arrogance is not something moral.

If you truly want to do something "moral", go down to your local ecumenical services and pay for a few prescriptions for those that cannot afford it. Relying on a corrupt, greedy system (as shown in the prices of health care) to do the work instead (sometime in the future), will not help.

I suggest we level-set and make sure we understand each other's definition of morality ... otherwise this discussion is doom to failure and misinterpretations.

Rather than relying on a corrupt, greedy for-profit system of hospitals and pharmaceuticals? Or corrupt, greedy people?

We all fall sort of perfection. To only claim the government is corrupt and greedy is the height of arrogance.

Of course. The system between the government and the health care industry is very inter-related and feeds off of each other. I have not said otherwise.

As was said earlier, many of the best pharma companies are based in Europe and Japan. Tons of our research also comes from Europe, Japan, and to a growing amount China. In fact, most of the early stem cell trials (not embryonic but adult) were conducted in Germany, Italy, Japan (damn the axis powers). That's not to say there's not a ton of innovation coming from the states, but a lot of it comes from people who are imported from India, China, and Europe. If you look at the top bioengineering schools in the world (my domain), the top 10 has 3 from England, another from Switzerland and the top 20 has a few from Canada, China, and others. The top life sciences schools have about 10 of the top 20 overseas.

I think notions like equality under the law allows for societies to mute their otherwise selfish and destructive rule of jungle behaviors.

So we're back on the end the tax cut for the wealthy thing as the main focus for the 15th time?

I'm not generally a big Maher fan, but this is fantastic.

Actual quotes from Romney fundraiser in the Hamptons this weekend:

MSNBC Stages 'Re-enactment' Of Romney Fundraiser | TPM TV

David Dreier, GOP Rep., Says Patient With 'Massive Tumor' Shouldn't Have Health Insurance Provided (VIDEO)

Sigh.

You can be upset all you want, but it's a situation that doesn't have a real good resolution at this point. If someone gets a massive tumor and opts out of medical insurance, should the insurance system suddenly shoulder the load of $1-2M in treatment and that person is only required to pay the relatively small premium?

But he is going to get a lot of expensive treatment through the emergency room. That's a big part of the problem. We aren't, thank God, going to let people die in the streets, so we need to come up with some system that allows us to cover those people in a more affordable manner.

"opts out."

Yeah, that's precisely what not getting coverage for pre-existing conditions is like. It's like opting out.

Except, nothing like it at all.

Yes.

The article had nothing to do with opting out of any coverage.

This particular mythical person with a large brain tumor is someone who we can say was repeatedly turned down for coverage by insurance providers because of their pre-existing condition. I think it's wrong and pretty close to cruel to say they won't be treated because an insurance company doesn't want to cover the expensive treatments needed. (Yes I know that they are running a business, etc, so don't throw that back at me.)

I'd rather have an insurance company covering his treatment while he pays a small premium, rather than him having to go to the ER uninsured, effectively being part of the massive problem that raises everybody's costs across the board.

But then again, I'm completely in support of a single payer health care system.

How can you be so compassionate in the "Disney" thread when talking about how you don't mind people being let ahead in the line if they have downs syndrome/autism/whatever (fyi i agree 100%), and yet be so inhumane here when talking about a hypothetical person with a brain tumor and them receiving healthcare?

Massively hypocritical IMO, no? I'd love for you to explain how it's not, because I honestly don't see how it isn't.

Sounds like something a 'death panel' would decide on to me.